Getting wishes from an Efreeti

[Samael Morgenst]

So let me get it right:

to get a Wish from an Efreeti the safe way you use Planar Ally, pay and xp cost of 250 xp and gift the genie an object worth 1000 gp, or you take a shortcut with Planar Binding, pay nothing but risk to fail - and the genie will probably try to subvert the wish. I got it right?

[AMFV]

So let me get it right:

to get a Wish from an Efreeti the safe way you use Planar Ally, pay and xp cost of 250 xp and gift the genie an object worth 1000 gp, or you take a shortcut with Planar Binding, pay nothing but risk to fail - and the genie will probably try to subvert the wish. I got it right?

That is actually not factually correct. The DM decides what is a reasonable request. Generally paying market is probably reasonable depending on what you're likely to do with your Wish but the DM has COMPLETE control over that. Unless you know your DM you can't actually say what would be allowed here.

The reason is this:



If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell. Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.

Because there is no formal definition what an unreasonable demand is the DM is entirely within their rights to say anything. "All Efreeti consider being forced to grant wishes by lesser beings unreasonable". That's not a very fair ruling, sure. But it is a RAW ruling. So you can't actually say what would happen.

Edit: Also there's no guarantee that even paying would encourage it not to twist your wish. They're not good beings.

[Inevitability]

It's worth noting that Planar Ally doesn't just give you a commandable efreeti either:


By casting this spell, you request your deity to send you an elemental or outsider (of 6 HD or less) of the deity’s choice. If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment. If you know an individual creature’s name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell (though you might get a different creature anyway).

There is no way to guarantee your deity will send you an efreeti, and in fact most deities have listed outsiders/elementals that are quite different. Maybe there's some obscure god who sends efreet but I wouldn't know about it.

[Samael Morgenst]

So what is the safest and cheapest way to get those wishes by RAW, beside buying Wishes scrolls?

[Tzardok]

Edit: Also there's no guarantee that even paying would encourage it not to twist your wish. They're not good beings.

I like to draw on lore from older editions where 3.x remains silent, and because of that I have to emphatically support this. According to Secrets of the Lamp (a 2e sourcebook and the only sourcebook on genies in all editions), efreets get audited by the Grand Sultan's officials after granting wishes and get punished if it is determined that they didn't put enough effort into screwing over the mortal. They are governmentally mandated to be malicious genies.

[InvisibleBison]

So what is the safest and cheapest way to get those wishes by RAW, beside buying Wishes scrolls?

The safest way is to use planar binding to call a noble djinni, which has the same wish-granting ability as an efreeti but is chaotic good aligned. The only wrinkle is that noble djinn might not be a separate kind of creature from regular djinn, and thus can't be specifically called. However, if your DM rules that to be the case, you can simply call a djinni, hope to get a noble, and if you don't have the normal djinni tell you the name of a noble djinni, ideally one who's willing to sell its wishes to mortals. This technique is also cheap in terms of money expended, though it might require multiple castings of magic circle and planar binding, so it's not the cheapest in terms of spell slot expenditure.

[Samael Morgenst]

I found nothing on that issue but, wouldn't be logical to contact an entity through communication spells and try to get an arrangement before calling/conjuring it?

[Darg]

The safest way is to use planar binding to call a noble djinni, which has the same wish-granting ability as an efreeti but is chaotic good aligned. The only wrinkle is that noble djinn might not be a separate kind of creature from regular djinn, and thus can't be specifically called. However, if your DM rules that to be the case, you can simply call a djinni, hope to get a noble, and if you don't have the normal djinni tell you the name of a noble djinni, ideally one who's willing to sell its wishes to mortals. This technique is also cheap in terms of money expended, though it might require multiple castings of magic circle and planar binding, so it's not the cheapest in terms of spell slot expenditure.

They still want to screw you over though.

If you don't mind your character being desperate and in need and lawful or good, you could call Pazuzu's name 3 times. The first wish will always be the best.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Be an outsider with LA +0 (such as having the Otherworldly feat), have a devoted familiar, take the Supernatural Transformation (3 Wishes) feat, polymorph into the appropriate genie type, have your familiar make your wishes for you, and...

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Be an outsider with LA +0 (such as having the Otherworldly feat), have a devoted familiar or psicrystal, take the Supernatural Transformation (Wish) feat, polymorph or metamorphosis into the appropriate genie type, find a way to get [Su]s of the things you turn into (such as Assume Supernatural Ability or Metamorphic Transfer), have your familiar or psicrystal make your wishes for you, and...

[Crake]

Be an outsider with LA +0 (such as having the Otherworldly feat), have a devoted familiar or psicrystal, take the Supernatural Transformation (Wish) feat, polymorph or metamorphosis into the appropriate genie type, find a way to get [Su]s of the things you turn into (such as Assume Supernatural Ability or Metamorphic Transfer), have your familiar or psicrystal make your wishes for you, and...

This is such backward logic. You can't take Supernatural transformation for an SLA you don't have, and you can't take assume supernatural ability or metamorphic transfer for an Su ability that the monster you're transforming into doesn't have. You're trying to put the cart before the horse there, twice


So what is the safest and cheapest way to get those wishes by RAW, beside buying Wishes scrolls?

Either have a DM that's willing to let you get easy, free, early game wishes, or hit level 17 and cast it yourself.

There's no other option. If your DM doesn't want you to have access to early and easy wishes, there is no "but the rules say I can!" answer, they all involve DM cooperation. Even buiying a wish scroll requires the DM to allow said scroll to be buyable in the first place.

[AMFV]

Either have a DM that's willing to let you get easy, free, early game wishes, or hit level 17 and cast it yourself.

There's no other option. If your DM doesn't want you to have access to early and easy wishes, there is no "but the rules say I can!" answer, they all involve DM cooperation. Even buiying a wish scroll requires the DM to allow said scroll to be buyable in the first place.

This is why the very most important step in optimization is to find material to use to blackmail your DM.

[Samael Morgenst]

Either have a DM that's willing to let you get easy, free, early game wishes, or hit level 17 and cast it yourself.

There's no other option. If your DM doesn't want you to have access to early and easy wishes, there is no "but the rules say I can!" answer, they all involve DM cooperation. Even buiying a wish scroll requires the DM to allow said scroll to be buyable in the first place.

Assume a virtual reality using strictly RAW official rules.
Also assume vacuum and spherical cows.

[Tzardok]

There are no rules for the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum in 3.x. Instructions unclear; try again.

[Crake]

Assume a virtual reality using strictly RAW official rules.

As always, under these conditions: Pun-pun.

But ask yourself: why though? No game actually runs under those conditions. Even if you're playing a completely solo player-as-dm-and-PC game, you wouldn't run things like that, because it would just be akin to turning on godmode and getting bored in 5 minutes when you mary sue your way through everything.

[AMFV]

Assume a virtual reality using strictly RAW official rules.
Also assume vacuum and spherical cows.

That's not even possible. The game just breaks. I use Planar Binding, what requests are considered "unreasonable"? Without somebody to say what requests are considered unreasonable the game just breaks. Somebody has to be there to make that call. Fortunately the game is designed with such a person present.

[Jay R]

Assume a virtual reality using strictly RAW official rules.
Also assume vacuum and spherical cows.

If there are already spherical cows, then I no longer need a wish.

[icefractal]

As has been pointed out, the "compel service" part of Planar Binding is somewhat GM-dependent. However, Planar Binding also brings the creature there physically. At which point (or by using Plane Shift and finding the genie in question) you have at least two alternatives:

Fair Dealing
For this, I'd go with a Noble Djinn instead of an Efreet, but YMMV. If you're a Wizard 11+ with any amount of optimization, you're easily qualifying as a useful ally. So make a deal. You'll have to pay for the wishes, but (since they're not paying anything to cast them) a bulk rate should be viable, and/or providing mercenary / magical-consulting services in lieu of gold.

Force
Knock out, kidnap, and mind-control an Efreet. Now there's no wish twisting, because they're your puppet that does what you say. And not just for one set of wishes either, because why let them go? Is this evil? Yeah, probably (doing it to another evil creature like an Efreet may put you lower priority on Paladin hit lists, at least). Will the Efreet want to kill you? Definitely. Will they succeed? Depends on how many friends they have and how good your defenses are.


Now, as regards things like "Efreet have unlimited wishes (by utilizing mortal 'wishing slaves')! WTF are you going to offer them they would care about? And if you try to go against them, you'll get crushed like a bug!" -
Well, yes if that's the case these won't work. But also, they'll be ruling all the planes (or else wiped out as too big a threat), so the setting will be very different. I think for a setting other than "Efreet rule the waves planes" we have to assume they truly can't benefit from their own wishes.

[Tzardok]

Congratulations, you just picked a fight with the Grand Sultan and the whole Empire of Efreet.

[icefractal]

Perhaps so, but ...

People do manage to murder citizens of powerful nations and get away with it. If you publicize yourself as "Bob the Efreet Trapper" then yeah, war is on. But if all anyone knows is that Fred the Efreet disappeared a few days ago, with no leads, then it's going to depend on whether Fred has enough friends with enough resources to find out what happened and track you down.

Again, assuming the Efreet are not ruling the entire multiverse with their wishes, as (not) seen in most D&D settings.

[AMFV]

As has been pointed out, the "compel service" part of Planar Binding is somewhat GM-dependent. However, Planar Binding also brings the creature there physically. At which point (or by using Plane Shift and finding the genie in question) you have at least two alternatives:

Fair Dealing
For this, I'd go with a Noble Djinn instead of an Efreet, but YMMV. If you're a Wizard 11+ with any amount of optimization, you're easily qualifying as a useful ally. So make a deal. You'll have to pay for the wishes, but (since they're not paying anything to cast them) a bulk rate should be viable, and/or providing mercenary / magical-consulting services in lieu of gold.

This again requires DM adjudication though. And we're back to where we started.



After listening to the engineer’s description of the problems and asking a few questions, he went to the boiler room. He looked at the maze of twisting pipes, listened to the thump of the boiler and the hiss of the escaping steam for a few minutes, and felt some pipes with his hands. Then he hummed softly to himself, reached into his overalls and took out a small hammer, and tapped a bright red valve one time. Immediately, the entire system began working perfectly, and the boilermaker went home.

When the steamship owner received a bill for one thousand dollars, he became outraged and complained that the boilermaker had only been in the engine room for fifteen minutes and requested an itemized bill. So the boilermaker sent him a bill that reads as follows:
For tapping the valve: $.50
For knowing where to tap: $999.50
TOTAL: $1,000.00”

The value of labor is not determined by how much that labor costs me. But by how much people are willing to pay for it. Wishes don't become instantly cheaper because they're easier for me. Maybe if they were trying to undercut the market, but because the world isn't run by people using Noble Efreeti wishes we can assume that's not the case.



Force
Knock out, kidnap, and mind-control an Efreet. Now there's no wish twisting, because they're your puppet that does what you say. And not just for one set of wishes either, because why let them go? Is this evil? Yeah, probably (doing it to another evil creature like an Efreet may put you lower priority on Paladin hit lists, at least). Will the Efreet want to kill you? Definitely. Will they succeed? Depends on how many friends they have and how good your defenses are.

What method of mind control are you using? You can say "mind control" but that's not a spell in the game nor is it a game mechanic, and most of the spells that explicitly control an outsider directly are around the same level as Wish.



Now, as regards things like "Efreet have unlimited wishes (by utilizing mortal 'wishing slaves')! WTF are you going to offer them they would care about? And if you try to go against them, you'll get crushed like a bug!" -
Well, yes if that's the case these won't work. But also, they'll be ruling all the planes (or else wiped out as too big a threat), so the setting will be very different. I think for a setting other than "Efreet rule the waves planes" we have to assume they truly can't benefit from their own wishes.

We could actually apply that pretty sound reasoning to the whole deal.

[Jack_Simth]

This is why the very most important step in optimization is to find material to use to blackmail your DM.
Bribing with pizza is usually safer: Someone you are blackmailing may want revenge.

[Jay R]

Adjudicating a wish is always judgment-dependent, and so it always requires the DM's approval.

The only safe way to get wishes is to take the wishes when the DM intends for you to have them, and then to make the kind of wishes that the DM approves. You cannot force safe wishes on a DM against her will.

There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge.

Similarly, any player knows the rules. A good player knows fantasy literature. A great player knows the DM.

If you want safe wishes, then step one is to find out how the DM handles wishes. And there is no step two until you've spent a lot of time and focus on step one.

Really -- a PC making a wish through a djinn or efreet is asking a supremely proud and powerful being to do something for you, against his will. You are simulating it by ... asking a supremely proud and powerful being to do something for you, against her will.

Do not attempt to "force" a safe wish from a DM. It can't be done.

[AMFV]

Really -- a PC making a wish through a djinn or efreet is asking a supremely proud and powerful being to do something for you, against his will. You are simulating it by ... asking a supremely proud and powerful being to do something for you, against her will.

Do not attempt to "force" a safe wish from a DM. It can't be done.

Except the DM is probably human so you can just use Dominate Person that's way lower level than the Dominate Monster that you'd have to use on the Djinn

[icefractal]

I guess it depends on when you encounter them. I think genies (and wish-granting demons) work best as something for fairly low-level PCs to encounter. When you're like 3rd level, an Efreet is an immensely scary force who can just end you on the spot if you **** around. And even the "safe" Wishes are far beyond what you could reasonably get otherwise.

By the time you're casting Planar Binding though, they're more like a peer. Who you might later surpass. After all, weren't all those djinn bound inside lamps by a mortal, back in the stories? I think that at higher levels, to get that same "tangling with powers beyond your comprehension" feeling, you really need "beyond normal stats" beings offering "beyond the safe uses" type of Wishes.

[Crake]

I guess it depends on when you encounter them. I think genies (and wish-granting demons) work best as something for fairly low-level PCs to encounter. When you're like 3rd level, an Efreet is an immensely scary force who can just end you on the spot if you **** around. And even the "safe" Wishes are far beyond what you could reasonably get otherwise.

By the time you're casting Planar Binding though, they're more like a peer. Who you might later surpass. After all, weren't all those djinn bound inside lamps by a mortal, back in the stories? I think that at higher levels, to get that same "tangling with powers beyond your comprehension" feeling, you really need "beyond normal stats" beings offering "beyond the safe uses" type of Wishes.

The “safe” uses of wish are only safe when you are the one casting wish. Any time an efreeti is casting wish, its not a safe wish, so you may as well go for “unsafe” requests

[Jay R]

Given that we all know different DMs are different, perhaps it would help if we each explained how we adjudicate wishes in our own worlds.

Here's mine, from my "Rules for DMs" document.

52. Wishes ought to be a social contract between the players and the DM. Don’t try to screw up the game, and I won’t try to screw up your character.


a. If a game system has clear, unambiguous limits for wishes, and a wish falls within the limits, then it should work as intended.

b. Wishes should rarely go wrong.

i. The best way for a wish to fail is to have no meaningful effect at all. Wasting a wish is well-attested in fantasy literature. It doesn’t hurt the game or the PC.
ii. When a wish actually goes bad, it should not cripple or destroy the PC, but at worst put the character in a difficult and threatening situation. Difficult and threatening situations are a DM’s stock in trade.
iii. When a wish has an actual negative effect on a PC, it should be a challenging obstacle, not a character-destroying tragedy. And it should end before it stops being challenging and becomes merely a boring weakness.

c. There is no sentient entity processing the wish (other than the DM). It is a pure magical effect – akin to programming a computer. There is neither benevolence nor malevolence involved. The risk of a wish is the same as the risk of a car or a power saw; it goes where you steer it, not where you intended to steer it.

i. There will be a very few malevolent exceptions to this. Efreeti can be malevolent because they are phrasing the actual wish.
ii. But after the wish has been phrased, it remains a pure magical effect with no sentient entity processing the wish.

d. Unless it will screw up the game, the DM should follow the exact wording of the wish. This is usually, but not always, the same as the intent.

i. Following the exact wording of the wish does not mean abusing homonyms. If they ask for an extra feat, they don’t get extra feet.
ii. Following the exact meaning of the wish does not mean a bizarre, unlikely meaning. It means the most reasonable meaning of those exact words.
iii. If it took you more than a few seconds to come up with that interpretation, then it isn’t the obvious meaning of those words.

e. A wish will be fulfilled in the simplest manner possible. If a player wishes to have the only sword in the world, it is easier for the magic to put him and his sword on a separate world than to find and destroy every other sword on the primary gameworld.

f. An unselfish wish is always much safer. Wish for bumper crops near the village, or for the plague to end, and the magic flows much more smoothly.

g. A wish grants one effect. If the PC wishes for a sword and a shield, then he gets a sword. The shield is another wish. If he has two wishes, he gets the first two effects requested. If he wishes to travel to another continent to be introduced to the king and marry the princess, then he gets the travel and to meet the king, and his wishes are done.

i. Among other things, this means that long contract-like texts of legalese won’t work. Only the first clause is enacted.

h. The primary principle remains this: Don’t try to screw up the game, and I won’t try to screw up your character.

These rules were written for myself, for the way I run games. I am not saying that anybody else “should” run a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, and so my players can know what to expect.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you. Not everybody agrees on how to run a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Darg]

Those rules are fine. The problem is that there IS a middle man when using another creature to grant your wish. As there is a middle man casting the wish for you, then there is very much room for shenanigans being involved. If a player is going to abuse mechanics for unlimited free wishes, so can any other creature in the game. It's completely possible for that efreeti that you mistreated to call in a favor from another efreeti that they were owed and have a wish cast to geas the character to have their wishes undone and give away their wealth.

[spectralphoenix]

Now, as regards things like "Efreet have unlimited wishes (by utilizing mortal 'wishing slaves')! WTF are you going to offer them they would care about? And if you try to go against them, you'll get crushed like a bug!" -
Well, yes if that's the case these won't work. But also, they'll be ruling all the planes (or else wiped out as too big a threat), so the setting will be very different. I think for a setting other than "Efreet rule the waves planes" we have to assume they truly can't benefit from their own wishes.

I think this reasoning could be applied to the entire subject of efreeti wishes - if the campaign setting isn't ruled by efreeti, wizards making bulk wishes, or something powerful enough to check the other two, why not? It makes more sense to work backward from there and imagine there must be a reason it doesn't work than assume the PCs are the first people in history to come up with the idea.

[Darg]

I think this reasoning could be applied to the entire subject of efreeti wishes - if the campaign setting isn't ruled by efreeti, wizards making bulk wishes, or something powerful enough to check the other two, why not? It makes more sense to work backward from there and imagine there must be a reason it doesn't work than assume the PCs are the first people in history to come up with the idea.

To be fair, genies can't actually grant other genies wishes by the book. The common point of all these wish schemes is that you can compel the creature to grant your wish for free or by giving them back what you stole (their freedom) or what they still have (their life); or you some how gain the 24 hour recharge per day uses of creature abilities when you shapeshift or gain their abilities for yourself when you take on the form for less than 24 hours. It just logically makes sense that if those sources don't specifically permit you to gain full per day usage, then you go from 0 uses to 0 uses because that's how the rules are supposed to work. You gain the ability, but not the per day resource.

These are easily shut down by them being "unreasonable" interpretations of the rules.

[Crake]

To be fair, genies can't actually grant other genies wishes by the book. The common point of all these wish schemes is that you can compel the creature to grant your wish for free or by giving them back what you stole (their freedom) or what they still have (their life); or you some how gain the 24 hour recharge per day uses of creature abilities when you shapeshift or gain their abilities for yourself when you take on the form for less than 24 hours. It just logically makes sense that if those sources don't specifically permit you to gain full per day usage, then you go from 0 uses to 0 uses because that's how the rules are supposed to work. You gain the ability, but not the per day resource.

These are easily shut down by them being "unreasonable" interpretations of the rules.

Abilities dont have charges that are charged up every 24 hours. The logic goes: has ability been used in the past 24 hours? If no, then ability is available. If yes, then ability is not available.

Its not like items that gain their charges at dawn or whatever.

[Darg]

Abilities dont have charges that are charged up every 24 hours. The logic goes: has ability been used in the past 24 hours? If no, then ability is available. If yes, then ability is not available.

Its not like items that gain their charges at dawn or whatever.

Semantics. Spells per day and per day abilities do regain uses per day, hence the name. While that logic makes sense, it ignores the fact that the creature never had access to the ability prior to acquisition and unlike racial or class acquisition of such resources, you don't have the abstraction of time/training to explain away how you receive the resource like when you reach a new level for example. It's all powered by the spell/power/ability immediately, and each instance of the spell works independently of each other by the rules. Thus if we go by the logic you present, each casting of shapechange would refill those daily resources. Doesnt quite fit, but hey, the rules don't mention how it works so it's ultimately up to the DM. In my experience if you allow exploitative behavior, it just sucks the fun out of the game for everyone else.

[Crake]

Thus if we go by the logic you present, each casting of shapechange would refill those daily resources.

No, actually, it wouldnt. If you track “uses expended in the last 24 hours”, then recasting shapechange does not actually reset that counter in any way, and thus would not give you any extra uses.

You’re conflating the rules for daily abilties with the spellcasting rules. THOSE abilities require rest and preparation to regain. Those same rules do not apply to other abilities with daily uses

[Darg]

No, actually, it wouldnt. If you track “uses expended in the last 24 hours”, then recasting shapechange does not actually reset that counter in any way, and thus would not give you any extra uses.

You’re conflating the rules for daily abilties with the spellcasting rules. THOSE abilities require rest and preparation to regain. Those same rules do not apply to other abilities with daily uses

That still requires ignoring the fact that what gives you those abilities in the first place is a spell. There's no rule that says once an ability given by a spell is used up, another casting doesn't give any more uses. As written every spell cast works just like any other. The spell gives you x abilities with y uses per day. There are plenty of forms with a, b, c, etc uses per day of the exact same ability. Is each form a different ability? Or is the cap for daily uses actually the amount proffered by the form that gives the most? It seems like an unnecessary amount of complexity that is easily solved by just saying you don't have any per day uses of the ability available because it hasn't been a day yet.

And no, I'm not conflating them, however they are similar. They both have a per day mechanic that does not care at what point the hour strikes midnight. That said, the closest thing the rules state on the subject is that SLAs function just like spells. Also, not all casters need to prepare spells.

[Crake]

That still requires ignoring the fact that what gives you those abilities in the first place is a spell. There's no rule that says once an ability given by a spell is used up, another casting doesn't give any more uses.

Your issue here is that you're tracking it wrong. You don't track "uses remaining", you track "uses expended".

If you cast a spell that gives you an ability X/day, and you expend Y number of uses before it expires, then when you recast the spell, you have still used Y uses that day, so the remaining uses is still X-Y.

This works equally for say, cleric turning. If you cast eagle's splendor to give yourself 2 additional turns per day, and then you expend those 2 turns, when you recast eagle's splendor, you've already expended those 2 extra turns. Same reason nightstick stacking doesn't work.


As written every spell cast works just like any other. The spell gives you x abilities with y uses per day. There are plenty of forms with a, b, c, etc uses per day of the exact same ability. Is each form a different ability? Or is the cap for daily uses actually the amount proffered by the form that gives the most? It seems like an unnecessary amount of complexity that is easily solved by just saying you don't have any per day uses of the ability available because it hasn't been a day yet.

It does get confusing when you start looking at SLAs, because yes, how do you distinguish between each form's SLAs. If you transform into a form that has an SLA at-will, and expend a bunch of uses, then transform into another form where that SLA is limited, are you completely out, because you already used the ability a bunch of times? Luckily, Shapechange does not grant SLAs, it only grants supernatural abilities, which are, for the most part, pretty unique per form.


And no, I'm not conflating them, however they are similar. They both have a per day mechanic that does not care at what point the hour strikes midnight. That said, the closest thing the rules state on the subject is that SLAs function just like spells. Also, not all casters need to prepare spells.

Right, except the difference is that spells have an active recharge mechanic (ie, you have to DO something to regain them), while all other abilities are simply a "have you used this ability in the past 24 hours" check, and not an active recharge.

I have been trying to find the exact citation that states how the cooldown on abilities works, I remember it being in a super unintuitive rules section, and my table actually houseruled it, because it was actually just too much bookkeeping to keep track of WHEN you cast an ability on each day, so we just set it to recharge at sunrise, because it was easier, and we had a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the game.

It doesn't help that, with 3.5 being so out of date, it's a nightmare trying to look up anything rules related, as it all just defaults to 5e search results.

[Jay R]

I have been trying to find the exact citation that states how the cooldown on abilities works, I remember it being in a super unintuitive rules section, and my table actually houseruled it, because it was actually just too much bookkeeping to keep track of WHEN you cast an ability on each day, so we just set it to recharge at sunrise, because it was easier, and we had a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the game.

The rule on how it's done is on page 6 of the DMG:


"Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

So your solution has backing from the written rules.

[Tohron]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned social skills: either Diplomacy to try to make them friendly, or Bluff to subtly convince them that you really don't want an outcome that's actually neutral or beneficial to you. It's certainly satisfying to get a Wish "corrupted" in a way that actually helps you further!

[AMFV]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned social skills: either Diplomacy to try to make them friendly, or Bluff to subtly convince them that you really don't want an outcome that's actually neutral or beneficial to you. It's certainly satisfying to get a Wish "corrupted" in a way that actually helps you further!

Diplomacy isn't mind control though, and it doesn't change the fundamental nature of a creature.

[atemu1234]

I like to draw on lore from older editions where 3.x remains silent, and because of that I have to emphatically support this. According to Secrets of the Lamp (a 2e sourcebook and the only sourcebook on genies in all editions), efreets get audited by the Grand Sultan's officials after granting wishes and get punished if it is determined that they didn't put enough effort into screwing over the mortal. They are governmentally mandated to be malicious genies.

Imagining Robin Williams' genie going on the lam after being freed from his lamp. That's the real reason he went off to see the world. He was avoiding a subpoena.


This again requires DM adjudication though. And we're back to where we started.

Strictly speaking, the entire game runs on DM mandate. There's no way to parse a wish without it having to go through a human element - and in this case, the DM has very little reason to read the wish charitably - after all, it's being given to an evil outsider.

I would say the "pay market value" bit is a good way to avoid the worst possible outcomes, but there's still the very real chance that the efreet says it doesn't want to play and takes its ball and goes home. Done diplomatically, at least, it's less likely to end in one out for your head/other thematically appropriate body parts.

[Crake]

Imagining Robin Williams' genie going on the lam after being freed from his lamp. That's the real reason he went off to see the world. He was avoiding a subpoena.

In fairness, he was a djinn not an efreeti, it was jafar that became an efreeti

[atemu1234]

In fairness, he was a djinn not an efreeti, it was jafar that became an efreeti

That's the secret! He was an efreet who got a blue spray-tan and assumed an identity!

[Darg]

I have been trying to find the exact citation that states how the cooldown on abilities works, I remember it being in a super unintuitive rules section, and my table actually houseruled it, because it was actually just too much bookkeeping to keep track of WHEN you cast an ability on each day, so we just set it to recharge at sunrise, because it was easier, and we had a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the game.

It doesn't help that, with 3.5 being so out of date, it's a nightmare trying to look up anything rules related, as it all just defaults to 5e search results.

I mean, it's not stated in the rules whatsoever. The FAQ has an answer on it that mentions the lack of rules for it, but the closest the rules ever get to stating how it works is "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." However, in this particular area that's as good as not saying anything at all.

So saying I'm wrong in a discussion that doesn't even have a rule is premature. You can do it like you do it, but my groups and I are against providing characters an overwhelming wealth of resources including access to 3-5 free wishes for the cost of a spell cast of the same level wish is. Why prepare or learn Wish when you can just use shapechange with basically 0 cost?

[Crake]

I mean, it's not stated in the rules whatsoever. The FAQ has an answer on it that mentions the lack of rules for it, but the closest the rules ever get to stating how it works is "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." However, in this particular area that's as good as not saying anything at all.

I definitely recall reading it very explicitly out to my players at the table and us unanimously agreeing it was too much bookkeeping. Ill continue to try and find the source, so I guess watch this space for now?


Why prepare or learn Wish when you can just use shapechange with basically 0 cost?

Assuming you’re referring to zodar, because theyre limited to 1/year clearly, assuming a) they even exist in setting, and b) you even know about such an esoteric creature, and c) the DM doesnt deem them to be rare and unique creatures such that they arent a valid target to be shapechanged into.

[Darg]

Assuming you’re referring to zodar, because theyre limited to 1/year clearly, assuming a) they even exist in setting, and b) you even know about such an esoteric creature, and c) the DM doesnt deem them to be rare and unique creatures such that they arent a valid target to be shapechanged into.

Going beyond noble djinn and efreeti, there's the solar with a per day and two demons with a per week and per month respectively in core. If you assume limitations separate them and like abilities are the same, that's 3 from a genie, 1 from a solar, and 1 from a demon for a possible total of 5. Even if you think they are all the same ability, that's still 1 wish without restriction and up to 2 more with restriction for a total of 3.


I definitely recall reading it very explicitly out to my players at the table and us unanimously agreeing it was too much bookkeeping. Ill continue to try and find the source, so I guess watch this space for now?

I remember reading in a faerun book that by default SLAs are arcane by default because they draw on the power of the weave. Maybe there's something in a setting specific book?

[Crake]

Going beyond noble djinn and efreeti, there's the solar with a per day and two demons with a per week and per month respectively in core. If you assume limitations separate them and like abilities are the same, that's 3 from a genie, 1 from a solar, and 1 from a demon for a possible total of 5. Even if you think they are all the same ability, that's still 1 wish without restriction and up to 2 more with restriction for a total of 3.

Those are all slas which arent granted by shapechange

[Samael Morgenst]

It isn't enough to simply add at the end of any wish the clause:

"Grant my wish according to the spirit - not the letter - of the request." ?

[Crake]

It isn't enough to simply add at the end of any wish the clause:

"Grant my wish according to the spirit - not the letter - of the request." ?

Thats an extra request, so at best you could wish for that first, and for it to apply to your next wish, but also, its hardly at all foolproof, the genie could just interpret that as being their spirit, not yours, and just screw you even harder. Its a losing game, theres no foolproof wording, and ironically the more words you add, the more room for misinterpretation.

Also keep in mind this clause when it comes to greater wishes: “The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.” so the DM can quite literally just ignore any extraneous attempts to gap close by just calling it a partial fulfilment.

You cant win if the DM doesn’t want you to, this has been stated.

[Samael Morgenst]

the genie could just interpret that as being their spirit, not yours, and just screw you even harder.

To be fair, this is precisely going against the spirit of the request.

Also, the spirit of the request means the intention behind it, and precisely the intention of the one formulating the request.

But even if we assume "the spirit of the request as understood by the genie", the genie is intelligent enough to perfectly understand that spirit, and to pervert it would be precisely to go against it.


---

Anyhow, only the powerful requests can be thwarted, or the standard ones also?
For example, a request for a +1 inherent bonus or for a 20000 gp value gem can be distorted?

[Darg]

To be fair, this is precisely going against the spirit of the request.

Also, the spirit of the request means the intention behind it, and precisely the intention of the one formulating the request.

But even if we assume "the spirit of the request as understood by the genie", the genie is intelligent enough to perfectly understand that spirit, and to pervert it would be precisely to go against it.


---

Anyhow, only the powerful requests can be thwarted, or the standard ones also?
For example, a request for a +1 inherent bonus or for a 20000 gp value gem can be distorted?

Within the spell, anything not expressly stated can be perverted by the DM. The fact that the efreeti is a go between is also a point of perversion as you can't simply wish for a +5 flaming burst weapon as the enhancement bonus is an abstraction for characters.

Also, asking for the wish to go with the spirit of the request could mean that they give you the ghost template and that fancy new sword you asked for doesn't have the ghost touch property. They literally gave you the spirit and the request. It's not their fault you can't use the sword anymore.

[Jay R]

Fundamentally, there is no way to force the DM to give you something that he or she thinks will hurt the game.

So don't try. The safe way to make a wish is to accept the wishes that come to you, and not try to force wishes the DM doesn't want you to have.

In the game I'm currently running, each PC got a wish during the first session. Those wishes worked well, because my intent was to help first level PCs to survive in a dangerous world.

If a player tried to force an efreet to give a wish that I thought would hurt the game, that wish would not work.

[Crake]

To be fair, this is precisely going against the spirit of the request.

Correct, but the request for it to adhere to the spirit of the request must itself first be parsed literally, and is thus itself open to perversion. Youre putting the cart before the horse with how the request is processed and executed.

[Zanos]

Because there is no formal definition what an unreasonable demand is the DM is entirely within their rights to say anything. "All Efreeti consider being forced to grant wishes by lesser beings unreasonable". That's not a very fair ruling, sure. But it is a RAW ruling. So you can't actually say what would happen.

Edit: Also there's no guarantee that even paying would encourage it not to twist your wish. They're not good beings.
Even if your DM takes the interpretation that an efreeti granting a service that effectively costs it nothing other than a daily resource it doesn't use anyway in exchange for its freedom to be unreasonable, in the context that the game system has examples of planar bindings that have negotiated agreements including years and years of slavery and outright abuse by the spellcasters using planar binding, this is not really an obstacle. If you're a 9th level wizard and have a creature in a binding circle in front of you and can't figure out how to make it do what you want it to, you should try to get your conjuration degree refunded.

"Reasonable request" clause of planar binding is paper thin. Tome of Magic has a Balor that's been enslaved by a wizard for 500 years for effectively no payment. MMIV has a lich that uses whispers demons as shock troops and intentionally hits them with his own area of effect spells. ECS specifies that you must use Planar Binding charisma checks to compel an elemental to accept bondage in order to use the bind elemental feat to create the Eberron specific elemental items. There's basically no room to auto deny any request that a player could be expected to make from a creature unless he's Chaotic Evil and trying to summon up some demons to kill themselves for his own entertainment.



Also keep in mind this clause when it comes to greater wishes: “The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.” so the DM can quite literally just ignore any extraneous attempts to gap close by just calling it a partial fulfilment.
The wish will pervert the Efreeti's intent if the Efreeti tries to go beyond the normal safe limits of the spell. Not the person asking the Efreeti to use wish. The Efreeti can't use partial fulfillment to **** you over intentionally any more than a level 20 wizard could. He has no control over the wish if he goes beyond the safe limits, same as anyone else.


You cant win if the DM doesn’t want you to, this has been stated.
I agree, but if this is your stance you don't need to argue anything at all about how Efreeti wishes don't work. The system in which you're arguing features spells that put the victim under the complete control of the caster and make them their best friend; it's going to take some pretty bad faith, out of character, logic to deny a wizard his free wishes. Just tell your players it doesn't work because you actually want to have a functional game.

[Crake]

The wish will pervert the Efreeti's intent if the Efreeti tries to go beyond the normal safe limits of the spell. Not the person asking the Efreeti to use wish. The Efreeti can't use partial fulfillment to **** you over intentionally any more than a level 20 wizard could. He has no control over the wish if he goes beyond the safe limits, same as anyone else.

Correct, but it gives examples of perverted intents, which efreeti are fully able to do with any wish you present to them, as they are the ones doing the granting and have full control over the wish being cast. You might give the genie a fuly worded, longwinded statement that eventually says "I get 20,000 gold", but the genie only needs to wish for you to get 20,000 gold.

You aren't using the genie as a conduit to cast the wish spell yourself, and nothing says that the genie needs to cast the spell with your exact wording and intent, the only limtiation is that the genie cannot grant their own wish.

[Samael Morgenst]

I don't know if that would be considered RAW, RAI or homebrew, but personally I would say that requests that fall beyond the "standard" power of a Wish should be impossible to pervert. The more you ask, the more risk you take. But below a certain measure, the spell should just work.


Anyhow, unrelated...
an Efreeti isn't exceptionally powerful, for a being able to grant Wishes. He's a CR 8.

Mabye a credible threat of being subject to an Eternity of Torture + Imprisonment could work?

[rel]

So let me get it right:

to get a Wish from an Efreeti the safe way you use Planar Ally, pay and xp cost of 250 xp and gift the genie an object worth 1000 gp, or you take a shortcut with Planar Binding, pay nothing but risk to fail - and the genie will probably try to subvert the wish. I got it right?

Reliable methods of efreeti coersion I'm partial to are:
- Using planar binding to bring the efreeti to you and keep it in place while you hit it with your chosen flavour of mind control; Geas, suggestion, charm, etc.
- Or if you wait 2 level,s you can instead bring the efreeti in with planar binding as before, but just kill it and cast simulacrum on the body.

If you feel like negotiating with the outsider, instead of just moving straight to the mind control, there's mundane social skills, and also bribery. An efreeti can grant wishes to others, but needs help to get the benefits themselves.
'Give me these 3 wishes today and I'll get you these 3 wishes tomorrow' is probably the nicest offer an efreeti trapped in a wizards magic circle is likely to get.
Given a very real alternative is getting stabbed and used as simulacrum components, the smart efreeti is likely to take the deal and bend the knee.

[Zanos]

Correct, but it gives examples of perverted intents, which efreeti are fully able to do with any wish you present to them, as they are the ones doing the granting and have full control over the wish being cast. You might give the genie a fuly worded, longwinded statement that eventually says "I get 20,000 gold", but the genie only needs to wish for you to get 20,000 gold.

You aren't using the genie as a conduit to cast the wish spell yourself, and nothing says that the genie needs to cast the spell with your exact wording and intent, the only limtiation is that the genie cannot grant their own wish.
Nothing except for whatever mechanism you're using to control the efreet, sure. If the DM deems that planar binding isn't ever going to be a method for compelling behavior from outsiders, then he should make that houserule clear, because that's what the spell is for.



Reliable methods of efreeti coersion I'm partial to are:
- Using planar binding to bring the efreeti to you and keep it in place while you hit it with your chosen flavour of mind control; Geas, suggestion, charm, etc.
- Or if you wait 2 level,s you can instead bring the efreeti in with planar binding as before, but just kill it and cast simulacrum on the body.

If you feel like negotiating with the outsider, instead of just moving straight to the mind control, there's mundane social skills, and also bribery. An efreeti can grant wishes to others, but needs help to get the benefits themselves.
'Give me these 3 wishes today and I'll get you these 3 wishes tomorrow' is probably the nicest offer an efreeti trapped in a wizards magic circle is likely to get.
Given a very real alternative is getting stabbed and used as simulacrum components, the smart efreeti is likely to take the deal and bend the knee.
Really shouldn't be necessary because, as I've already mentioned, example usages by NPCs of planar binding include enslaving a balor for 500 years, using whisper demons as your frontline with friendly fire enabled, and enslaving elementals to create magic items. Apparently even outsiders much more powerful than Efreet and with better mental stats aren't able to weasel their way out of a planar binding telling them to be a slave for no reward. But yes, these are all good solutions for when your DM doesn't feel like actually reading. A combination of polymorph + spectral hand + dominate person also works as soon as you hit level 9, as long as you can convince your victim to accept the polymorph casting with suggestion or charm or some such.

[Darg]

"Reasonable request" clause of planar binding is paper thin. Tome of Magic has a Balor that's been enslaved by a wizard for 500 years for effectively no payment. MMIV has a lich that uses whispers demons as shock troops and intentionally hits them with his own area of effect spells. ECS specifies that you must use Planar Binding charisma checks to compel an elemental to accept bondage in order to use the bind elemental feat to create the Eberron specific elemental items. There's basically no room to auto deny any request that a player could be expected to make from a creature unless he's Chaotic Evil and trying to summon up some demons to kill themselves for his own entertainment.

It's only as paper thin as the DM wishes it to be regardless of what WotC/Paizo has written. These statements were written specifically for that purpose.


I agree, but if this is your stance you don't need to argue anything at all about how Efreeti wishes don't work. The system in which you're arguing features spells that put the victim under the complete control of the caster and make them their best friend; it's going to take some pretty bad faith, out of character, logic to deny a wizard his free wishes. Just tell your players it doesn't work because you actually want to have a functional game.

How is it bad faith? Bad faith is doing something specifically to try to break the game in the first place. The only reason you think it's bad faith is because you don't want your freedoms infringed. It's ok, you don't need to play with big bad restrictions.

[Crake]

Nothing except for whatever mechanism you're using to control the efreet, sure. If the DM deems that planar binding isn't ever going to be a method for compelling behavior from outsiders, then he should make that houserule clear, because that's what the spell is for.

Planar binding contracts are, by RAW, just as open to perversion.

[Zanos]

It's only as paper thin as the DM wishes it to be regardless of what WotC/Paizo has written. These statements were written specifically for that purpose.
As always a DM can do whatever they want, but loose interpretations of these rules to restrict bargains that are unfair to outsiders go against many of the example usages of these spells. People argue that "unreasonable commands" is not defined, but it is defined; via usage. You don't get to ignore examples because the rules were unclear, they actually become far more important in such situations.


How is it bad faith? Bad faith is doing something specifically to try to break the game in the first place.
The logic would be bad faith, since you're telling a player that something that is clearly possible within the rules isn't possible within the rules.

The only reason you think it's bad faith is because you don't want your freedoms infringed. It's ok, you don't need to play with big bad restrictions.
Huh? I literally said in my first post that it's necessary to restrict this if you want the game to function at all. I can disagree with poor argumentation without disagreeing with the conclusion. I encourage DMs to restrict players from breaking their game; just be honest about it.

[Darg]

As always a DM can do whatever they want, but loose interpretations of these rules to restrict bargains that are unfair to outsiders go against many of the example usages of these spells. People argue that "unreasonable commands" is not defined, but it is defined; via usage. You don't get to ignore examples because the rules were unclear, they actually become far more important in such situations.


The logic would be bad faith, since you're telling a player that something that is clearly possible within the rules isn't possible within the rules.

Huh? I literally said in my first post that it's necessary to restrict this if you want the game to function at all. I can disagree with poor argumentation without disagreeing with the conclusion. I encourage DMs to restrict players from breaking their game; just be honest about it.

The problem here is that the examples are not part of the rules. Let's break down the examples you presented. First up is the ToM balor. Forced to serve for 500 years thanks to a carefully negotiated binding spell. Negotiation implies that they accepted the terms and weren't simply compelled into such a long term contract. Up next is the example in the MMIV. It says nothing about the demon being compelled or if it was a negotiated contract so it literally is not evidence to support your stance or anyone else's. Finally the Bind Elemental feat. It uses a setting specific item with binding properties. This is an extraneous factor outside of the core rules fully within its right to modify the rules it relies upon. None of these examples are good enough to prove your argument and in fact imply the exact opposite. You can do what you want with the called creature if you negotiate for it or use a setting specific mechanical means to change what is unreasonable in one specific way.

So no, I wholly disagree that it's clearly stated that unreasonable is not actually unreasonable.

[Zanos]

The problem here is that the examples are not part of the rules.
They are.

Forced to serve for 500 years thanks to a carefully negotiated binding spell. Negotiation implies that they accepted the terms and weren't simply compelled into such a long term contract.

The door to this room is locked (Open Lock DC 35). Inside is a powerful balor demon, forced to serve the Votaries for five hundred years by means of a carefully negotiated greater planar binding spell. Its duties consist of torturing captives and learning whatever facts it can for Crestian (see area 13). The demon’s victims rarely last for long as it immolates them in its excitement. The balor resents its binding, so it does what it can to betray and disrupt its master’s plans.
Apparently, so long as you "negotiate" carefully, 500 years of service for no reward that the demon resents and hates you for isn't "unreasonable." Are PCs incapable of negotiating carefully?


Up next is the example in the MMIV. It says nothing about the demon being compelled or if it was a negotiated contract so it literally is not evidence to support your stance or anyone else's.
This one is sparse, but the terms of the planar binding apparently don't include a provision that the lich doesn't kill the whisper demon on purpose. Apparently you can "negotiate" such that blowing the demon up for no reason other than intentional carelessness isn't unreasonable.


Finally the Bind Elemental feat. It uses a setting specific item with binding properties. This is an extraneous factor outside of the core rules fully within its right to modify the rules it relies upon.
No, it doesn't.

While the elemental resides in the receptacle, you must compel it to accept bondage in the item by making an opposed Charisma check, as specified in the lesser planar binding spell description.


You can do what you want with the called creature if you negotiate for it or use a setting specific mechanical means to change what is unreasonable in one specific way.
The word negotiate is not in the Planar Binding spell description. The word compel is. Planar binding is not planar ally. Rewards are explicitly optional. FCII even contains a wizard that uses planar binding explicitly to enslave a pain devil. The creatures freedom is all it gets in return (eventually, if it survives) by default. The idea that planar binding can't be used to compel services from an outsider, which is explicitly what the spell is for and how it's used by NPCs, is just not supported.

The unreasonableness clause is only for commands. You can't tell your victim to do something it cannot reasonably achieve. Your terms can absolutely be unreasonable, because the entire spell is unreasonable.

[Crake]

Apparently, so long as you "negotiate" carefully, 500 years of service for no reward that the demon resents and hates you for isn't "unreasonable." Are PCs incapable of negotiating carefully?


This isnt an analogous example to binding an efreeti for wishes though.

Firstly, an efreeti who doesnt pervert wishes is at risk of being audited by the grand sultan, so that comes with its own issues (im not familiar with this lore, so i wont expand on it), but secondly, EVEN WITH a carefully negotiated contract, the demon is a) still doing this in line with its nature and b) it was STILL willing AND ABLE to betray its master where possible.

None of that suggests that you could compel an efreeti into perfectly interpreting your wishes and providing you with a favourable outcome, even if you COULD make a carefully negotiated contract

[Zanos]

This isnt an analogous example to binding an efreeti for wishes though.
It's not a direct analogy, I bring it up because it's a good example for how deeply unfair to outsider planar bindings are. There's a reason that the spell specifies that victims may take revenge or subvert instructions; because they don't like it.


Firstly, an efreeti who doesnt pervert wishes is at risk of being audited by the grand sultan, so that comes with its own issues (im not familiar with this lore, so i wont expand on it)
I've never heard of this, is that 2nd edition lore?


but secondly, EVEN WITH a carefully negotiated contract, the demon is a) still doing this in line with its nature and b) it was STILL willing AND ABLE to betray its master where possible.
Where possible = terms the contract doesn't cover. The demon is charged with torture, not being quiet in the presence of outsiders or guarding his masters lair, so he doesn't do those things.


None of that suggests that you could compel an efreeti into perfectly interpreting your wishes and providing you with a favourable outcome, even if you COULD make a carefully negotiated contract
Why not? People only make these arguments for Efreeti wishes; when someone wants to bind a 12 intelligence demon to go and murder someone for them there's not all this skullduggery of the demon pulling out its textbook knowledge of English(well, common I guess) and using the 4th, out of use, archaic definition of a word to reinterpret what you mean.

[Darg]

They are.

Apparently, so long as you "negotiate" carefully, 500 years of service for no reward that the demon resents and hates you for isn't "unreasonable." Are PCs incapable of negotiating carefully?

Reasonable doesn't mean pleasant. The text doesn't say that the balor isn't getting something out of it so you shouldn't just assume they aren't.


This one is sparse, but the terms of the planar binding apparently don't include a provision that the lich doesn't kill the whisper demon on purpose. Apparently you can "negotiate" such that blowing the demon up for no reason other than intentional carelessness isn't unreasonable.

You can compel mercenaries to perform a job by throwing cash at them and then blow them up in the middle of it too. The blowing them up part isn't part of the deal, it's extra.


The word negotiate is not in the Planar Binding spell description. The word compel is. Planar binding is not planar ally. Rewards are explicitly optional.

I never said rewards weren't optional. I only ever said unreasonable commands are never agreed to as the spell states. Obviously if the spell magically compels the creature to do something, why would you need a charisma check to get the creature to agree to something in the first place? An actual compulsion effect doesn't need a charisma check to compel an action. And if it were a compulsion, a protection from x spell would negate the effect. The word "compel" doesn't always have to have a magical connotation to it.


FCII even contains a wizard that uses planar binding explicitly to enslave a pain devil. The creatures freedom is all it gets in return (eventually, if it survives) by default. The idea that planar binding can't be used to compel services from an outsider, which is explicitly what the spell is for and how it's used by NPCs, is just not supported.

Why is it such an impossibility that the demon sells themselves into indentured servitude? Manually forcing a collar on someone isn't the only way to make a slave.


The unreasonableness clause is only for commands. You can't tell your victim to do something it cannot reasonably achieve. Your terms can absolutely be unreasonable, because the entire spell is unreasonable.

Do you really believe you can compel a creature to kill themselves as a service to you just because the spell doesn't disallow it according to your understanding? It wouldn't be an impossible demand, but it would be an unreasonable command. You're trying to use a specific understanding to negate the broader meanings of the text on the page.

[Troacctid]

A lot of gall to use an example from FCII to argue for a loose interpretation of reasonability, considering that FCII also says that asking an imp to do literally anything is an unreasonable request if you don't offer at least 150 gp or a human sacrifice in compensation.

[Zanos]

I think it takes a lot of gall to say that the rules are unclear while ignoring the examples that clarify those very rules, and saying that the examples don't say that the caster didn't [insert x] but hey. There's enough imp gall (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Imp_Gall) to go around.

[Crake]

Obviously if the spell magically compels the creature to do something, why would you need a charisma check to get the creature to agree to something in the first place? An actual compulsion effect doesn't need a charisma check to compel an action. And if it were a compulsion, a protection from x spell would negate the effect. The word "compel" doesn't always have to have a magical connotation to it.

Charisma isn't just about negotiating and convincing, it can also be about impressing your ego upon your target. Charm person's opposed cha check to make someone do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do for example, and there's the rule about when two compulsions give mutually exclusive orders, it's an opposed cha check between the two casters to see who comes out on top.

So the cha check isn't about convincing the outsider to do anything, it's about forcing your ego and will upon them to make them do something.

I think that the fact they literally cannot reneg on the deal is pretty indicative of this. They can subvert and undermine, but never outright go against the deal.


I've never heard of this, is that 2nd edition lore?

As I said, not familiar with the lore myself, other people brought it up earlier in the thread.


Where possible = terms the contract doesn't cover. The demon is charged with torture, not being quiet in the presence of outsiders or guarding his masters lair, so he doesn't do those things.

I dunno about the specifics, but I somehow doubt that the contract is written up in full for the players and DMs to know exactly where it can be exploited. Seems more to me like "where possible = where it's narratively interesting".


Why not? People only make these arguments for Efreeti wishes; when someone wants to bind a 12 intelligence demon to go and murder someone for them there's not all this skullduggery of the demon pulling out its textbook knowledge of English(well, common I guess) and using the 4th, out of use, archaic definition of a word to reinterpret what you mean.

That's probably because a 12 int demon probably is more than happy to spend some time on the material plane and murder said guy. And honestly, if your contract with the demon was simply "Go murder this guy", in my campaign, that would mean the demon would take all the time in the world on the material plane, probably murdering a bunch of unnecessary, innocent civilians in their pursuit, and call it "information gathering", so yeah, they'd be doing what you said, but also basking in the glory of wanton chaos and murder, and you'd be the one responsible.

So yeah, I dunno, if you asked me, I'd say the 12 int demon would be just as willing to subvert your orders in the pursuit of their own enjoyment.

[Samael Morgenst]

This isnt an analogous example to binding an efreeti for wishes though.

Firstly, an efreeti who doesnt pervert wishes is at risk of being audited by the grand sultan, so that comes with its own issues (im not familiar with this lore, so i wont expand on it), but secondly, EVEN WITH a carefully negotiated contract, the demon is a) still doing this in line with its nature and b) it was STILL willing AND ABLE to betray its master where possible.

None of that suggests that you could compel an efreeti into perfectly interpreting your wishes and providing you with a favourable outcome, even if you COULD make a carefully negotiated contract

If I may express my opinion, I don't find that argument very convincing.



A lot of gall to use an example from FCII to argue for a loose interpretation of reasonability, considering that FCII also says that asking an imp to do literally anything is an unreasonable request if you don't offer at least 150 gp or a human sacrifice in compensation.

What page/chapter?

[Darg]

Charisma isn't just about negotiating and convincing, it can also be about impressing your ego upon your target. Charm person's opposed cha check to make someone do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do for example, and there's the rule about when two compulsions give mutually exclusive orders, it's an opposed cha check between the two casters to see who comes out on top.

So the cha check isn't about convincing the outsider to do anything, it's about forcing your ego and will upon them to make them do something.

I think that the fact they literally cannot reneg on the deal is pretty indicative of this. They can subvert and undermine, but never outright go against the deal.

You are compelling them with the charisma checks, just not magically so, with the spell binding them to the service when agreed to. Different offers can be more or less compelling than others. The charisma check is there to facilitate the character's ability rather than the player's ability to be charismatic. My position is wholly on the fact that it's still just an attempt to compel the demon to agree to the service and that the spell has a failsafe for the DM to not allow wealth destroying exploitations. On top of that, the DMG allows the DM to provide circumstantial bonuses and penalties based on, well, the circumstances if they aren't wholly against the idea of the success.

[icefractal]

The fact that it's a raw charisma check rather than a skill check indicates to me that it doesn't just represent normal negotiation. Coming to a non-coercive agreement with a demon (or whoever) would be Diplomacy.

[Troacctid]

What page/chapter?
Page 30, "Devilish Bribes and Gifts".

A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell must negotiate terms for its service, offering gifts and sacrifices to secure the desired assistance. In most cases, the negotiations are lengthy, involving several offers and counteroffers before an agreement is reached.

The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.

[Darg]

The fact that it's a raw charisma check rather than a skill check indicates to me that it doesn't just represent normal negotiation. Coming to a non-coercive agreement with a demon (or whoever) would be Diplomacy.

Of course it isn't normal. You literally ripped them away from where they were, trapped them in a magic circle they can't escape from, and then are trying to get them to simply agree to a magically binding service agreement. The only leg the creature has to stand on is the fact that you want something from them. It's as much compulsion as it can get without it being a magical compulsion.

[icefractal]

But if you, say, traveled to the Abyss, incapacitated a demon, trapped it in a dimensionally locked cell, and then negotiated for a service in exchange for its freedom ...

That would be Diplomacy and/or Intimidate. Not a straight Charisma check. I think Planar Binding is a form of compulsion - though not the same form as Dominate Monster.


... huh, now that I think of it, should binding chaotic creatures like demons be inherently harder than lawful ones like devils? Since "follow this specific set of rules" is like daily life for a devil, but an unwanted imposition on a demon.

[Crake]

If I may express my opinion, I don't find that argument very convincing.

Usually you follow that up with reasoning and debate so the conversation can continue, otherwise all I can really respond to it with is "cool story bro"


just not magically so

with the spell binding them

Spells are literally magical by defintion. I have to assume that by "magically" you actually mean by enchantments, which I would agree with you on, it is not an enchantment compulsion.

[Darg]

But if you, say, traveled to the Abyss, incapacitated a demon, trapped it in a dimensionally locked cell, and then negotiated for a service in exchange for its freedom ...

That would be Diplomacy and/or Intimidate. Not a straight Charisma check. I think Planar Binding is a form of compulsion - though not the same form as Dominate Monster.

I don't think diplomacy or intimidate fits because you are essentially doing both at the same time. Compulsion was a concept before the creation of fantasy magic. Not hard to see how the concept applies in this situation honestly.


Spells are literally magical by defintion. I have to assume that by "magically" you actually mean by enchantments, which I would agree with you on, it is not an enchantment compulsion.

Two points. As I mentioned above you don't need magic to compel someone to do something. Second, if it were magical compulsion, not necessarily an enchantment, then the service part of the binding could be considered mental manipulation as well. With that, a simple protection from x spell would suppress the binding. Protection from x doesn't require it to be magical, just that it's an "effect"; which is generally caused by abilities or spells or powers, not plain skill/ability checks.

[icefractal]

So (unrelated to my last post) I've had some thoughts on this.

First, I'll acknowledge that anyone saying "the best answer is to play the GM rather than the rules here" is correct. I'm not going to take that route though, because it's table-specific to the point that there's not much common ground for discussion. And honestly, as a GM? I want the players to take action independent of me when it's possible to - between four players plus my own ideas, there's enough stuff that I need to handle personally / make rulings on that there's barely enough time for it. I've got no idea why any GM would want to add more to that.

Second, it occurs to me that the real secret sauce for not getting screwed is two words: Sense Motive.

Demons and genies and such can be very tricksy with their wordings and deals. And while you could try to anticipate every loophole, it's an uphill struggle at best and impossible at worst (if bad faith interpretations are on the table). But you know who knows whether they're going to screw you over, and how? The genie. And neither genies or demons are infinitely good at lying. So just be better at seeing through those lies.

Sense Motive alone doesn't give you leverage, but it makes sure your leverage isn't secretly worthless.

[Samael Morgenst]

DEVILISH BRIBES AND GIFTS
A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell must
negotiate terms for its service, offering gifts and sacrifices to
secure the desired assistance. In most cases, the negotiations
are lengthy, involving several offers and counteroffers before an
agreement is reached.
The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a
number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of
the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances
of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the
modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.
Negotiations with Devils
Offer or Condition Charisma Check Modifier
Length of Service
Up to 1 round per caster level –1
Up to 1 minute per caster level –2
Up to 1 hour per caster level –4
Up to 1 day per caster level –8
Task Complexity
Simple (for example, retrieve an unguarded object) +0
Difficult (retrieve a guarded object protected
by wards) –2
Very difficult (retrieve a heavily guarded object
protected by powerful wards) –4
Impossible (pluck a hair from St. Cuthbert’s head) –8
Casting Circumstances (Cumulative)
Spell cast before more than ten followers +1
Spell cast before more than one hundred followers +1
Spell cast in a desecrated area +1
Spell cast in an unhallowed area +2
Wealth Offerings
50 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +1
51–100 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +2
101–500 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +4
501–1,000 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +8
Sacrifi ce (Cumulative)
Sacrifice is tortured +1
Sacrifi ce is good-aligned +1
Sacrifice has the good subtype +1
Sacrifi ce has 1–5 HD +1
Sacrifice has 6–10 HD +2
Sacrifi ce has 11–15 HD +3
Sacrifice has 16 or more HD +4
Sacrifice is a cleric of another god, demon lord,
or archdevil +2
Sacrifice is willing but controlled +1
Sacrifi ce is genuinely willing +3
Caster offers soul +8
For example, Edgar, a 9th-level wizard, casts lesser planar binding to
call a bearded devil. The service he demands will require 8 hours,
imposing a –4 penalty on his Charisma check. Thus, Edgar must
offset this penalty before the negotiations can even begin. The
highest wealth offering he can make is 3,000 gp in assorted coins
and goods. Since the devil has 6 HD, Edgar gains a +4 bonus,
bringing the modifier on his Charisma check back up to +0.



Can multiple sacrifices be offered?
For example a dozen goblins, an hundred captives or so?

And...
so, asking a Glabrezu for a Wish would be at worst a -8 request?

[Darg]

Can multiple sacrifices be offered?
For example a dozen goblins, an hundred captives or so?

And...
so, asking a Glabrezu for a Wish would be at worst a -8 request?

I'm pretty sure it just means that the categories are cumulative with each other, not that the bonuses are cumulative from each source. But hey, sacrificing villages and/or a group of virgins is a trope. I got nothing against it.

[Crake]

Two points. As I mentioned above you don't need magic to compel someone to do something. Second, if it were magical compulsion, not necessarily an enchantment, then the service part of the binding could be considered mental manipulation as well.

My point was that it was a compulsion in the standard defintion of the word, but not a [Compulsion], ergo not mind affecting. They are being cosmically forced to adhere to the agreement due to their nature as an outsider/elemental. There's a reason why you can only use planar binding on outsiders and elementals after all, because they are cosmic beings subject to these laws of magic. Pact magic like this does not apply to mortals or other normal creatures.

Not every word used in a discussion needs to be a tag or a key-word.


Can multiple sacrifices be offered?
For example a dozen goblins, an hundred captives or so?

And...
so, asking a Glabrezu for a Wish would be at worst a -8 request?

Glabrezu are demons, not devils, they don't play by the FC2 rules, both mechanically and diagetically.

[rel]

The set of rules from FCII have no modifiers for intimidating the outsider which strikes me as odd.
I'd be reluctant to use them as a GM, since they prevent interesting scenarios like the wizard binding 3 Efreeti in a row and asking each in turn for an unfavorable deal then casually killing them off when they refuse until one of them, probably the last, sees the writing on the wall and takes the ****ty deal.

With that sort of thing off the table, the PC's are encouraged to go for more reliable boring strategies like beating a single bound outsider unconscious and spamming mind control until something sticks.

[Jack_Simth]

Reasonable doesn't mean pleasant. The text doesn't say that the balor isn't getting something out of it so you shouldn't just assume they aren't.
It also doesn't say exactly how it came about.

Suppose a Wizard binds Balor A.

Balor A is a big boss balor, whom the Wizard carefully researched and verified as such. Balor A has many other Balors under his command, and he really, really doesn't want to stick around on the prime material for a while; he has work to do.

Binder negotiates with Balor A for the services of one of A's underlings, Balor B. Balor B is a Balor that is under command of Balor A, and hasn't been doing great recently; Balor A sees this as a wonderful opportunity to get B out of his hair for a while, and get him on punishment detail at the same time, AND drop a tiny little clause in B's orders to kill this pesky mortal once that 500 years is up (it's not particularly relevant whether or not the mortal is expected to live until then, A orders B to just kill him after the 500 years is up).

You have a carefully negotiated contract via GPB. You have 500 years of service of an outsider via said binding and negotiation. You also have something that is very setting dependent, that the DM pretty much needs to allow to work... which is fine for NPCs. And a reason why this really isn't a good idea (which is also fine for NPCs).

[Crake]

The set of rules from FCII have no modifiers for intimidating the outsider which strikes me as odd.
I'd be reluctant to use them as a GM, since they prevent interesting scenarios like the wizard binding 3 Efreeti in a row and asking each in turn for an unfavorable deal then casually killing them off when they refuse until one of them, probably the last, sees the writing on the wall and takes the ****ty deal.

With that sort of thing off the table, the PC's are encouraged to go for more reliable boring strategies like beating a single bound outsider unconscious and spamming mind control until something sticks.

Efreeti are also not devils, same as glabrezu, so the fc2 rules do not apply

[Darg]

Efreeti are also not devils, same as glabrezu, so the fc2 rules do not apply

But they do establish that for players that planar binding wasn't meant to be simply a free enterprise, nor last longer than 1 day per caster level.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, the point is that if you're going to go diving for examples of how binding should work and what deals should be possible, then that's a game that absolutely does not favor the "You can just ask them to do whatever you want and not pay them" interpretation, because there are hard and fast rules directly contradicting that.

It doesn't put much of a dent in the "I'll just use the spell to bring them here and then coerce them by other means" plan, though, I guess.

[rel]

The set of rules from FCII have no modifiers for intimidating the outsider which strikes me as odd.
I'd be reluctant to use them as a GM, since they prevent interesting scenarios like the wizard binding 3 Efreeti in a row and asking each in turn for an unfavorable deal then casually killing them off when they refuse until one of them, probably the last, sees the writing on the wall and takes the ****ty deal.

With that sort of thing off the table, the PC's are encouraged to go for more reliable boring strategies like beating a single bound outsider unconscious and spamming mind control until something sticks.


Efreeti are also not devils, same as glabrezu, so the fc2 rules do not apply

Sure, but that's not really the point.

Those expanded rules seem to encourage the PC's to engage in the safe boring play of using planar binding to only call in and trap outsiders and then gain control of them using other more reliable methods of mind control.
Since I'd rather see the PC's taking risks, gambling on getting a really good faustian deal, and potentially getting up to some interesting mischief along the way, I probably wouldn't use them at my table.

[Crake]

But they do establish that for players that planar binding wasn't meant to be simply a free enterprise, nor last longer than 1 day per caster level.

No, it establishes this for devils, and devils alone. Remember, devils have a very strict society, and one devil not playing by the rules affects expectations for all devils, so it would be fair to call anything outside of their rule structure an “unreasonable request”.

Other creatures dont live by those same rigid structures, and so those rules do not apply.

[Darg]

Sure, but that's not really the point.

Those expanded rules seem to encourage the PC's to engage in the safe boring play of using planar binding to only call in and trap outsiders and then gain control of them using other more reliable methods of mind control.
Since I'd rather see the PC's taking risks, gambling on getting a really good faustian deal, and potentially getting up to some interesting mischief along the way, I probably wouldn't use them at my table.

A charisma check is not a saving throw. Mechanically speaking, they can't choose to fail the check nor ignore the failsafes built into the spell. Charm or dominate don't say anything to counter that. So even threatening them doesn't technically change how the spell works either.


No, it establishes this for devils, and devils alone. Remember, devils have a very strict society, and one devil not playing by the rules affects expectations for all devils, so it would be fair to call anything outside of their rule structure an “unreasonable request”.

Other creatures dont live by those same rigid structures, and so those rules do not apply.

We could agree to disagree and realize this is a divisive topic and that no one can just rely on a singular method to work. Which was the whole point of the argument in the first place. Planar binding is only as reliable or permissive as your DM.

[Crake]

We could agree to disagree and realize this is a divisive topic and that no one can just rely on a singular method to work. Which was the whole point of the argument in the first place. Planar binding is only as reliable or permissive as your DM.

I mean, that remains my point. By trying to indicate that the fc2 rules apply, you actually push towards a more raw centric rather than dm adjudicated outcome.

Imo, thats fine for the highly rigid and predictable devils, but not anything beyond that. Every other circumstance is unique and will happen as dictated by the individual scenario and how the players act in that given environment.

[Samael Morgenst]

And for an haf-devil Efreeti?

[Crake]

And for an haf-devil Efreeti?

Not appliccable, half fiend, even if from a devil, doesnt grant the baatezu subtype, which is what defines a creature as a devil.

Efreeti of any sort have their own heirarchy, they dont follow hell’s rules